Wrong. If I'm walking down the street at night and I see a women walking towards me, I don't pay much attention. If its a man? I definitely pay attention to what he's doing. The reason being is that, (IMO)men seem to be more violent and attack random people than women do. The fact that most muggings I hear about are done by men and all the serial killers I can think of are also men, doesn't make me feel confident that the male stranger walking past me at night won't be a violent person. I don't think that the average women posses the same kind of threat to me at night.

Men are on average more physically powerful, yes. But would you also feel equally threatened by a small guy and a big muscular one?

On the other side of the shoe, how easy would you feel if you saw this woman walking down an alleyway towards you with an angry glint in her eye?

I prefer to split the bill, I don't want it to seem like I am with someone just to make use of their money to pay for everything.Same reason I prefer to decline gifts. Unless, of course, I am currently able to gift them back something of at least equal value.

I prefer bill-splitting or taking turns. It is as much a moral statement (I don't want to be a freeloader) as it is a political one (if I support feminism and equality I can't embrace unequal, outdated customs).

Men are on average more physically powerful, yes. But would you also feel equally threatened by a small guy and a big muscular one?

Yes, because being small hasn't stopped men in the past from being violent monsters. Also, a small man with a knife that is threatening me unless I give him my wallet is just as dangerous as a muscular man with a knife that is threatening me unless I give him my wallet.

There are really dumb ideas about what it means to be 'manly', and that kind of thinking is enforcing the outdated stereotype that the man should be the provider and the stronger and the one that makes the decisions in a family.

Outdated? Perhaps in the Western world, but that's not the case globally.

And if you let women get through things more easily, there also is the unfortunate implication that if a woman is successfull, it's not because she is actually good, it's because she was helped.

What? By being nice to a women, I mean holding the door open for her, not supporting affirmative action policies that hire women because they're women. I don't I ever supported that. Also, me being nice to a women won't help her on SAT/ACT test, MCAT, or any other serious test that people face in their life. I'm not trying to help her cheat on a test.

I should not have to go ut of my way to try to get equal treatment, in those cases where sex (or something like physical strength) does not matter.

Fair enough, but I also shouldn't get berated for wanting to pay for a date, because that is all I'm doing, paying for the dinner bill. I'm not one of those guys you worked with. I'm not asking you to perform sub par.

And if you let women get through things more easily, there also is the unfortunate implication that if a woman is successfull, it's not because she is actually good, it's because she was helped.

What? By being nice to a women, I mean holding the door open for her, not supporting affirmative action policies that hire women because they're women. I don't I ever supported that. Also, me being nice to a women won't help her on SAT/ACT test, MCAT, or any other serious test that people face in their life. I'm not trying to help her cheat on a test.

But you are a part of that culture, and supporting it with your actions. And are you saying you aren't nice to men? I hold out doors to whoever comes after me, or if I see someone who has their hands full. I do not treat men and women differently.

I should not have to go ut of my way to try to get equal treatment, in those cases where sex (or something like physical strength) does not matter.

Fair enough, but I also shouldn't get berated for wanting to pay for a date, because that is all I'm doing, paying for the dinner bill. I'm not one of those guys you worked with. I'm not asking you to perform sub par.

Individually, there is nothing particularly bad for wanting to pay for your dates. But there is a double-standard in the overall-trend, where a man wanting to pay is more expected than a woman doing it. To the extent that some people consider it 'bad manners' if the man doesn't pay.

The movement for equal rights, yes. How often do we have anti-feminist people going 'yeah, feminists say they want equality, but they actually only want to be treated like princesses by the men! They want none of the responsibility!'. That's a strawman feminist.

Actually.

"Gender Equalisist" would be the least Gender-biased term.

As there are inequalities in either side, depending upon your perspective, and what-not.

Surely as somebody who paints themselves as a "Feminist" it's vital you're not using a word that's geared towards a certain gender, when pursuing gender equality.

The movement for equal rights, yes. How often do we have anti-feminist people going 'yeah, feminists say they want equality, but they actually only want to be treated like princesses by the men! They want none of the responsibility!'. That's a strawman feminist.

Actually.

"Gender Equalisist" would be the least Gender-biased term.

Surely as somebody who paints themselves as a "Feminist" it's vital you're not using a word that's geared towards a certain gender, when pursuing gender equality.

There's the history behind it. Historically, women were the sex that were opressed, so gender equality started with the women's liberation. I don't see why people now should redefine it as 'wanting preferential treatment for women' now.

I'm also for gay rights, and it doesn't mean I think gay people should have preferential treatment.

I generally don't go telling people I'm a 'feminist', rather opting for telling them I'm for the equal treatment for both sexes, mostly because I'm not generally too keen to identify as any -ist, but I do define the term to mean the idea that men and women should have equal rights, and think that things like the attitudes towards gender-roles like this are a part of the problem.

Lieju:There's the history behind it. Historically, women were the sex that were opressed, so gender equality started with the women's liberation. I don't see why people now should redefine it as 'wanting preferential treatment for women' now.

I'm also for gay rights, and it doesn't mean I think gay people should have preferential treatment.

I generally don't go telling people I'm a 'feminist', rather opting for telling them I'm for the equal treatment for both sexes, mostly because I'm not generally too keen to identify as any -ist, but I do define the term to mean the idea that men and women should have equal rights, and think that things like the attitudes towards gender-roles like this are a part of the problem.

There's history behind it, but, history is just that, it's over.

The gross differences in equality amongst men and women has been pretty much eradicated these days, despite what some more... Dramatic people may claim.

So, the term feminist is an old one, today it evokes the image of ill-informed blog writers who think that you support rape if you're not a die-hard "Feminist".

I too, am in favour of equality for both sexes, but, it's vital not to paint yourself as blind. To say "I'm a feminist" Implies only an interest in the female side of things. And at this stage, the differences between men and women are enough that one has to keep a pretty fair view of either side.

It's also rather useful to prevent the bickering of "My gender doesn't get this!" and "Well, mine doesn't get this!", as you can just resolve any debate between both issues as "Both are wrong and should be changed."

So, to put it simply, the reason why the word has to change, is because hard-liners have pretty much tarnished it beyond repair.

Lieju:There's the history behind it. Historically, women were the sex that were opressed, so gender equality started with the women's liberation. I don't see why people now should redefine it as 'wanting preferential treatment for women' now.

I'm also for gay rights, and it doesn't mean I think gay people should have preferential treatment.

I generally don't go telling people I'm a 'feminist', rather opting for telling them I'm for the equal treatment for both sexes, mostly because I'm not generally too keen to identify as any -ist, but I do define the term to mean the idea that men and women should have equal rights, and think that things like the attitudes towards gender-roles like this are a part of the problem.

There's history behind it, but, history is just that, it's over.

The gross differences in equality amongst men and women has been pretty much eradicated these days, despite what some more... Dramatic people may claim.

So, the term feminist is an old one, today it evokes the image of ill-informed blog writers who think that you support rape if you're not a die-hard "Feminist".

I too, am in favour of equality for both sexes, but, it's vital not to paint yourself as blind. To say "I'm a feminist" Implies only an interest in the female side of things. And at this stage, the differences between men and women are enough that one has to keep a pretty fair view of either side.

It's also rather useful to prevent the bickering of "My gender doesn't get this!" and "Well, mine doesn't get this!", as you can just resolve any debate between both issues as "Both are wrong and should be changed."

So, to put it simply, the reason why the word has to change, is because hard-liners have pretty much tarnished it beyond repair.

You have a point, but I'm not sure if letting 'a feminist' become dirty word is useful, because it still carries the historical baggage. It would be pretty easy for the opposition of these 'gender-equalists' then point out to the historical context, and go 'But aren't you claiming these same things? You are a feminist in disguise!', and it would be pretty difficult to argue against that.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that 'today it evokes the image of ill-informed blog writers who think that you support rape if you're not a die-hard "Feminist".'. It depends on where you hang out, I suppose.

And even then, considering how often I've heard the argument 'feminists say they want equality, but where are their complaints when it's about female priviledges!?', it seems to me a lot of those people do define 'feminist' the same way I do, it's just that they think feminists are hypocrites who only say they stand for equality.

But there always were people who were claiming feminists only want preferential treatment ('If we give the women the right to vote, they have more power, because they will be able to both vote themselves and influence their husbands opinions!'- actual argument from back then), and people who were either for female superiority, or didn't really think about things too hard.

And what rights do the feminists want? The same as dogs? The same as children? Or the same as men?

Depends on which group of feminist we are referring to, but to generalize it seems that they want the same rights as men. This doesn't mean the feminism in and of itself is about equal rights movement, it just means that the mainstream movement wants the same rights as men. If it was really a equal rights movement, it wouldn't just help women, it would strive to help men as well. However in the US I haven't heard about feminist trying to change the fact that men face harsher sentences for the same crimes and that there is discrimination/prejudice that fathers face when they get divorced and want full custody of their children.

This is not to say that its a bad thing that feminism is a women's rights movement, its just that I'm pointing out that it isn't a movement for equal rights for both sexes.

Well, that's okay then! As are witch-hunts, or female circumcision, or the belief that the Earth is flat...

I'm just pointing out that your view is some what Western centric. Just because the customs of the majority of the West is X, does not equate to the rest of the world also having custom X. Case in point, I could say that the only stable and successful countries are secular and/or democratic. However, that would be very, very, wrong. Just because something is one way in the West, doesn't mean it reflect the rest of the entire world.

But you are a part of that culture, and supporting it with your actions. And are you saying you aren't nice to men? I hold out doors to whoever comes after me, or if I see someone who has their hands full. I do not treat men and women differently.

I'm supporting what actions? The act of opening a door for a women? I just told you that I don't support affirmative action that hires a person solely because they are a women, so no. I clearly don't support the actions that would allow a man to claim that a women just got where she was because she's a women.

Sure I'll hold the door for a guy with his hands full. However I won't wait and hold a door for a guy who is ten or twenty feet behind me walking to the door. On the other hand, I will for a women.

Individually, there is nothing particularly bad for wanting to pay for your dates. But there is a double-standard in the overall-trend, where a man wanting to pay is more expected than a woman doing it. To the extent that some people consider it 'bad manners' if the man doesn't pay.

I realize this, and I realize that guys do this because of the hopes that paying for things equate to kisses and sex. But to be honest I'm kind of conservative about the subject of human touch. I don't like to kiss a person on the first date, nor do I have any desire for one night stands. The thought of catching STD's scare the hell out of me, so I rather get to know the person first before I put my health at risk. That said, I see your point because I'm well aware that most guys don't share my views on this subject.

The movement for equal rights, yes. How often do we have anti-feminist people going 'yeah, feminists say they want equality, but they actually only want to be treated like princesses by the men! They want none of the responsibility!'. That's a strawman feminist.

Actually.

"Gender Equalisist" would be the least Gender-biased term.

Surely as somebody who paints themselves as a "Feminist" it's vital you're not using a word that's geared towards a certain gender, when pursuing gender equality.

There's the history behind it. Historically, women were the sex that were opressed, so gender equality started with the women's liberation. I don't see why people now should redefine it as 'wanting preferential treatment for women' now.

I'm also for gay rights, and it doesn't mean I think gay people should have preferential treatment.

I generally don't go telling people I'm a 'feminist', rather opting for telling them I'm for the equal treatment for both sexes, mostly because I'm not generally too keen to identify as any -ist, but I do define the term to mean the idea that men and women should have equal rights, and think that things like the attitudes towards gender-roles like this are a part of the problem.

There was also a history of Black people being slaves in the US and for a time they were, for a lack of better words, the poster child for civil rights. However, today the dialogue of civil rights isn't just focused on Black Americans, but various other group. So if discussing civil rights in the US and a person says that they support "Black power" when they actually mean unity,strength and self-determination for not just Black Americans, but also for Native/Asian/Middle Eastern/ Hispanic/Desi/LGBT/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Buddhist/Atheist-Americans, it is still strongly associated with Black America and the struggle they went through. The same applies here, is sounds like what you mean when you say you're a feminist, is that you are a Egalitarian.

Here's how it always worked when I was dating - I'm a dozen years off the market for the record though so not really "current" info: whoever asks, pays. Simple, easy, non-gender bias. The person who picks the activity / asks the other person / it's their idea - they're paying unless they stipulate going half and half at the onset of the idea - this is usually for BIG ideas like trips more than dates - and the problem resolves itself. My mother always taught me to bring enough to pay my half in case it came to that or wasn't clear who was paying to avoid embarrassment for both parties. No idea what men's / boy's father's tell them about how much to bring.

And for the record I think it is silly that this is seen by some (on both sides) as an issue worthy of feminists (or equal-itst) or whomever's time. It's a personal situation for people and strictly between them who pays for what and why. When did we come to the state of the world where everything must be done to a form set by people completely uninvolved in the situation? How sad I feel when groups look around to find ways to stick themselves into the affairs that rightly belong to private individuals.

I'd prefer to split or take turns, but it all depends upon the situation...

Though since the last time that I had a date was...fuck five or six years ago, I can't really remember anything but my very last date, where I offered to pay for lunch...and we had lunch...and then he broke up with me.

And what rights do the feminists want? The same as dogs? The same as children? Or the same as men?

Depends on which group of feminist we are referring to, but to generalize it seems that they want the same rights as men. This doesn't mean the feminism in and of itself is about equal rights movement, it just means that the mainstream movement wants the same rights as men. If it was really a equal rights movement, it wouldn't just help women, it would strive to help men as well. However in the US I haven't heard about feminist trying to change the fact that men face harsher sentences for the same crimes and that there is discrimination/prejudice that fathers face when they get divorced and want full custody of their children.

You know, according to my definition, any organisation that does try to change things so that the courts treat men and women the same way are feminist. You can't really separate the women's rights and the men's rights, because they are so closely intertwined.For example, why do men face harsher sentences? Might it be because there is the cultural idea that women are victims, and if they act violently, it must be a man's fault, because a woman is not responsible for themselves?Also, I don't have the statistics here, but I recall one of the factors for women getting shorter sentences was that they more often were single parents. Which ties to how women have the advantage for getting the custody of children, which ties to the idea that it's the woman's role in the family to raise the children, while the man is the provider.Which is the part of the mindset that the man should pay for the dates.

If you want the men to have equal rights, don't support the idea that the men should be the ones bearing the financial responsibility for the couple.

Helmholtz Watson: Just because something is one way in the West, doesn't mean it reflect the rest of the entire world.

And? What I said was that the idea that the men SHOULD provide for women is outdated. It doesn't mean all men should just stop providing for their families and demand equal responsibility from the women immediately (as there are countries where the women cannot be employed, or can't get as well-paying jobs), but that we should work towards that and a situation where the women can support themselves financially.

Individually, there is nothing particularly bad for wanting to pay for your dates. But there is a double-standard in the overall-trend, where a man wanting to pay is more expected than a woman doing it. To the extent that some people consider it 'bad manners' if the man doesn't pay.

I realize this, and I realize that guys do this because of the hopes that paying for things equate to kisses and sex. But to be honest I'm kind of conservative about the subject of human touch. I don't like to kiss a person on the first date, nor do I have any desire for one night stands. The thought of catching STD's scare the hell out of me, so I rather get to know the person first before I put my health at risk. That said, I see your point because I'm well aware that most guys don't share my views on this subject.

It's not just about one-night-stands and getting laid. It's about whether you treat the other person as an equal or not.

Helmholtz Watson: The same applies here, is sounds like what you mean when you say you're a feminist, is that you are a Egalitarian.

I am both. I'm not terribly fond of people forcing their definitions on others. I'm not a feminist according to your definition of 'feminism', okay then. But I define myself what I want to call myself.

I'm reminded of how one Christian told me how I'm not an atheist because I'm not evil, and that in fact I'm Christian, because I want to be nice to people, and so doing god's work.

Exactly why I don't date. I can't support paying for someone else to eat on my wage. Even if I split it then its still too much for me to pay and means I can't have some of the things I usually buy every week.

I am both. I'm not terribly fond of people forcing their definitions on others. I'm not a feminist according to your definition of 'feminism', okay then. But I define myself what I want to call myself.

I'm reminded of how one Christian told me how I'm not an atheist because I'm not evil, and that in fact I'm Christian, because I want to be nice to people, and so doing god's work.

I remember making some offhanded reference to being a feminist in front of a male friend of mine who blurted out `But you can't be!.... You don't hate men!`.

He went on to add, `besides, you're not a lesbian`.PHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly90cm9tb3RpY29ucy5maWxlcy53b3JkcHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMTIvMTEvZmFjZXBhbG0uanBnP3c9NDIwIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==

I believe whoever invites the other should be the one paying, however, from my experience I have never met a man who would not become uncomfortable when I try to pay for a meal while out dining. I found it easier if I wanted to treat them, I would purchase tickets in advance, Pay for rentals ahead of time or make a meal myself so they would not " protest". I have never paid the bill after dinner while dining out, I went around that by prearranging everything and having the server come out and tell him there was no bill instead.

As for when out clubbing and such, I have never paid a cover charge, or bought my own drinks, but not because I would not, they don't charge me, and I usually have more drinks sent to me than I could possibly ever consume. I wind up giving them away to someone else. I have bought rounds of drinks for others though.

Rather than ask someone out and also have them pay for themself, I would think that if you could not afford to ask them out, you could do something like homemade dinner by the lake that would be even nicer than eating out somewhere instead.If I did have a guy ask me out and then expect me to pay for the date, I would not be having a second date with them simply because that is rude to impose a bill on to someone who is supposed to be your guest. If they are that lacking in creativity and care for their date, why would anyone consider dating them in the first place? Have never had that happen, but if I did, I might have had to excuse myself in the middle of dinner and not returned. That isn't about money, it is about the care they put into their date plans, if I can go through the trouble to put together a good date and make arrangements ahead of time, they could do so as well.

There are really dumb ideas about what it means to be 'manly', and that kind of thinking is enforcing the outdated stereotype that the man should be the provider and the stronger and the one that makes the decisions in a family.

Outdated? Perhaps in the Western world, but that's not the case globally.

You are right that it is not the case globally, but that is increasingly a problem. Take for example the case of Japan, where many women cannot advance in their careers because it's assumed that single women are just in a holding pattern until they find a spouse, at which point it is assumed they'll drop out of the work force for several years to make babies. So they often aren't trusted with important positions in companies, and makes building the connections needed for politics rather difficult.

Hence, women are largely absent from high-level business positions and are under-represented in the Diet. And as a result, Japan is suffering from a leadership crisis- the only people in the halls of power tend to all be the same ineffective people who all have the same ineffective answers to the problems of the day. Their economy has been in two decades of stagnation with no sign of any change on the horizon. Even worse, since the leadership doesn't take women's issues seriously, there is no effort being put forward to solve the crippling lack of childcare in most big cities. That means women who have children must leave the work force in order to care for their children. So the cycle repeats itself.

Katatori-kun:I find it odd that you're making this entire line of argument. When I walk down the street, I don't assume anyone is a threat to me unless they, you know, act like a threat.

Just move to Australia. The only non-threatening thing about Australia is some of the sheep.

Lieju:I am both. I'm not terribly fond of people forcing their definitions on others. I'm not a feminist according to your definition of 'feminism', okay then. But I define myself what I want to call myself.

I'm reminded of how one Christian told me how I'm not an atheist because I'm not evil, and that in fact I'm Christian, because I want to be nice to people, and so doing god's work.

Part of the problem here - and you can see it going on in this thread - is that feminism is not a very well-defined term. It does, in fact, have several contentious and sometimes mutually exclusive definitions held by a wide variety of people who all self-identify as "feminist."

I mean, I walked into university assuming that feminism meant treating men and women equally. That's a reasonable assumption that I can see repeated several times in this very thread. Six years later I walked out with no goddamn idea what feminism was, what it aimed to accomplish, or whether I was a feminist. I'd had so many different definitions shoved in my face by people who vigorously disagreed with each other that I didn't know who to trust. It was like undergoing a fistfight with a pugilistic octopus. Students told me I couldn't be a feminist because I was a guy. LGBT activists told me my girlfriend wasn't a feminist because she was heterosexual. Socialists told me feminism was incompatible with capitalism. Lecturers told me that equal rights feminism was outdated and discriminatory (???). And on the topic of this thread, I was once called a chauvinist because I offered to buy a lady a coffee.

These were all people who called themselves feminists and acted as if they were authorities in the field of feminism (many had gender studies degrees and some were lecturers) but none of them could tell me what feminism was about without contradicting each other. The only internally coherent definition I could construct was "something to do with women." I mean, I literally gave up on trying to understand it; I just resolved to not be a dick to ladies, which I hope is a good position to take, and ignored the rest.

I've heard people with more reasonable definitions of feminism say that the opinions I heard were just those of a vocal minority. I certainly hope they were a minority. But the fact is, they're still very vocal. With so much white noise, one shouldn't be surprised if another person's understanding of feminism is very different from their own, or if they wade into gender war threads shouting "I hate feminism!" For all we know about feminism, they may hate tulips, or strawberry milkshakes. They're attacking a straw man, but it's not their straw man, and they aren't responsible for its construction.

Vivace-Vivian:For me its simple. Whoever asks pays. If I'm the one to ask, I will.

For a huge majority of men, that is the same thing as saying "I believe that the man should pay." Western dating scripts being what they are, if a man doesn't approach, for the most part that man remains alone.

Lieju:And what rights do the feminists want? The same as dogs? The same as children? Or the same as men?

In response to this I'll ask the same question that always needs asked -- In Western nations, what rights do men have that women do not (access to certain military positions in some countries, which I totally agree is a problem and needs to go away)? I can name examples in the other direction.

If you can't come up with a good answer, then would you agree that women have equal rights in Western nations?

Lieju:Well, that's okay then! As are witch-hunts, or female circumcision, or the belief that the Earth is flat...

You know what? Sure, why not. I am going to formally declare the subset of FGM that WHO calls Type Ia FGM as being absolutely wonderful, something that we should encourage be done to all girls as an alternative to the more destructive forms of FGM that are more commonly practiced (since genital cutting is clearly something that isn't a serious problem when it's done to males, type Ia FGM is homologous to circumcision, women should have the same rights as men, and men lack a right to that particular form of bodily autonomy while an infant, this follows right?). =p

If I recall the initial exchange behind the inception of this thread; it was suppose to include the question regarding who paid for your dates the last three times. Because preference and practice are two completely different things. While some people claim they prefer one idea, in reality their preferences may be completely ignored or subverted by current expectations.

I'm also questioning the terminology used in the poll itself. The question being; "Do you expect men to pay for dates?" With the two yeses being obvious affirmations of the expectations and the three no's being preferential in nature. Do the yeses not prefer to be paid for? Are the no's merely against the expectation with the caveat that a preference of being paid for is assumed?

And of the men's responses. An expectation that the female pays in direct contrast to the expectation they pay. A preference for mutual reciprocation in lieu of the expectation. And the last one, not even indicating a preference for the expectation, but one of affirmation that they merely do it.

No gender/sex equivalent responses. No explanations on the responses or questions. No consistency in wording. Hmph...

This poll was poorly done. The subsequent discussion surrounding it supports that it was poorly executed. Any and all results gleamed from this poor research methodology should be rejected as inconclusive and unsubstantial.

Wrong. If I'm walking down the street at night and I see a women walking towards me, I don't pay much attention. If its a man? I definitely pay attention to what he's doing. The reason being is that, (IMO)men seem to be more violent and attack random people than women do. The fact that most muggings I hear about are done by men and all the serial killers I can think of are also men, doesn't make me feel confident that the male stranger walking past me at night won't be a violent person. I don't think that the average women posses the same kind of threat to me at night.

Men are on average more physically powerful, yes. But would you also feel equally threatened by a small guy and a big muscular one?

On the other side of the shoe, how easy would you feel if you saw this woman walking down an alleyway towards you with an angry glint in her eye?

This poll was poorly done. The subsequent discussion surrounding it supports that it was poorly executed. Any and all results gleamed from this poor research methodology should be rejected as inconclusive and unsubstantial.

Translation: I don't like this the results of this poll therefore I reject it.

But feel free to start your own poll, minus the *ahem* poor research methodology. I'm sure the results will be radically different.

EDIT: Was it you I was conversing with in the original thread? If so, I seem to remember prompting you several times to start your own poll in order to substantiate your claim that "most women expect the man to pay!"

At which point you sort of ummed and aahed about for a bit and said, "I don't have to prove anything! You start a poll if you're so interested!"

So I did start a poll. A poll which showed that the majority of women prefer to split the bill or take turns, thereby proving you wrong in quite a substantial way.

And then you jump into the thread and say, "The poll is completely invalid because ... I don't like ... the phrasing of the questions!"

In response to this I'll ask the same question that always needs asked -- In Western nations, what rights do men have that women do not (access to certain military positions in some countries, which I totally agree is a problem and needs to go away)? I can name examples in the other direction.

You mentioned one yourself; 'western dating scripts' that dictate that women should not ask men out, and that dictate what is okay for a man to do and what to women.

I think you're confused, and think 'rights' only means the changes in law. I mean, we all know how racism went away in one night when the US gave the black people the right to vote...

I'm talking about rights like being able to enjoy the same things without being opposed or ridiculed, being able to walk down the street without facing the threat of sexual violence, having roughly the same amount of male and female people in charge, the right for the same job opportunities, the right to be represented equally in the media etc.

EDIT:I give you one example of a law being unfair to men here in Finland; men are forced to go through military service, which for women is voluntary. And I'm opposed to this. But always when I try to talk about this to men, they just go 'it's fine', because it's the sign of a 'true man'... And then make fun of women going through service.

Incidentally, my friend who is male, and blind, didn't have to go through it either, and I think that's also wrong. Sure, you shouldn't give him a gun, but he is cabable of doing work, he could do something.

Lieju:Well, that's okay then! As are witch-hunts, or female circumcision, or the belief that the Earth is flat...

You know what? Sure, why not. I am going to formally declare the subset of FGM that WHO calls Type Ia FGM as being absolutely wonderful, something that we should encourage be done to all girls as an alternative to the more destructive forms of FGM that are more commonly practiced (since genital cutting is clearly something that isn't a serious problem when it's done to males, type Ia FGM is homologous to circumcision, women should have the same rights as men, and men lack a right to that particular form of bodily autonomy while an infant, this follows right?). =p

In fact, I believe both male and female circumcision should not be practised for infants. (If an adult wants to do that to themselves, go ahead)

And the country I live in (Finland) neither is practised.

(The reason I mentioned female circumsicion specifically was because in some western countries, male circumcision is very common, and I was giving examples of hings that aren't common in the west.)

Part of the problem here - and you can see it going on in this thread - is that feminism is not a very well-defined term. It does, in fact, have several contentious and sometimes mutually exclusive definitions held by a wide variety of people who all self-identify as "feminist."

Maybe it's just the people I hang out with, where 'feminism' is defined as advocating equality. I am aware there are different definitions, though, so I gave mine. And when anyone attacks any 'ism' they should do the same.

boots:Subject is more or less in the title. This one is for ladies who go on dates with guys - whether casually or as part of your relationship. Do you expect the guy to pay for the meal/cinema tickets/rowboat rental fee, or do you prefer a different arrangement?So chances are if you are out on a date and you're not sure what your date prefers, the best bet is to just split the bill.

For first dates, split, definitely. You don't want to go in with a sense of obligation.

Actually, not split - each pays for what they bought. Some people want to "split" the bill exactly down the middle even if they got something more expensive than I did, and fuck that. If I got a salad and a water, I want to pay for a fucking salad and water.

Ahem.

Once dating is established, taking turns is easier.

Not that this much matters now - been married for quite some time, so when we go out, it doesn't matter who pays because it goes on the same credit card either way.

Although, when we go out with other couples, we usually split (that is, get separate bills) and let them pay for themselves while we pay for ourselves.

boots:Subject is more or less in the title. This one is for ladies who go on dates with guys - whether casually or as part of your relationship. Do you expect the guy to pay for the meal/cinema tickets/rowboat rental fee, or do you prefer a different arrangement?So chances are if you are out on a date and you're not sure what your date prefers, the best bet is to just split the bill.

For first dates, split, definitely. You don't want to go in with a sense of obligation.

Actually, not split - each pays for what they bought. Some people want to "split" the bill exactly down the middle even if they got something more expensive than I did, and fuck that. If I got a salad and a water, I want to pay for a fucking salad and water.

Ahem.

Once dating is established, taking turns is easier.

Call me old-fashioned, but I would have thought paying was up to whoever asked who out. Of course once you have a joint account, the issue is moot.